Making racism shameful in Finland and Europe

While the US Civil Rights Movement led by Martin Luther King Jr. did not eradicate racism in the United States, it was singled out as a threat to society and challenged. Landmark laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were not the only matters that changed things. Racism became shameful in many parts of the United States.

Martin Luther King Jr. was killed by an assassin’s bullet on April 4, 1968. I still remember that day as vividly as when President John F. Kennedy’s assassination four years earlier.

We heard about the news of King’s death in class on radio as well. One comment by a white male still rings out in my head even after four decades. It was the face of racism speaking to you in its crudest and rudest form: “It’s a good thing that King was killed,” the man said without any remorse.

Right around when the landmark Civil Rights Act was passed, racism thrived at our elementary school as well as in many other places. In Hollywood, Mexicans were the natural targets of your racism and rage. At our school we hated anyone who was different, even an obese classmate.

I’ll never forget when our school got its first black student. The principle gave a talk to the whole school shortly before this historic event at our elementary school. He told us to treat the new student with respect and like any other student.

I personally felt sorry and ashamed by the hostile behavior of my fellow classmates. I did speak out but there was very little I could do. What happened, however, left a lasting and disturbing impression that has followed me during my lifetime.

The black student lasted about two weeks at our school.

I only remember his last name. It was Brown. Some kids joked about it making comparisons of his last name to excrement.

How is it possible that children can learn so much hatred and racism?

For one, racism wasn’t shameful back then. It was part of a child’s everyday language. If you were an adult, it was part of your macho identity if you were a man.

It’s clear that racism thrives in places where it isn’t effectively challenged. Racism is an astute foe because it can poison your mind even without your knowledge. Some racists don’t know that they behave and hold such anti-social attitudes.

The rise of a party like the Perussuomalaiset in April and its leader Timo Soini playing down racism are good examples of how this social ill has grown in a Finnish context. The arguments used are the same that racists in the U.S. and in other parts of the world justified ethnic discrimination.

If Soini were black or part of a minority like the Romany, I doubt that he’d play down the role of racism in the PS never mind Finland.

Just like racism can feed and help a movement like the Nazi Party to grow in the 1930s, it can bring out as well great leaders like King and the best in our society.

We’ll know that we have won that decisive victory against racism and xenophobia in Finland when the majority of Finns consider them shameful and unacceptable.

The “great leader” King plagiarized his doctoral thesis, associated with drug dealers and other lowlife, and stole church funds to have sex with prostitutes, according to former close associates such as Ralph Abernathy and FBI records.

MLK worship is a symptom of a society undergoing rapid ideological reorientation. Such phenomena can best be understood in the historical context of a cultural struggle in which a new value system is being forcibly deployed upon an unwilling populace. Here we have an example of the radical “Umwertung aller Werte” necessary to delegitimize European identity and pave the way for demographic population replacement: the negro is a saint or a god, third-rate plagiarism is considered to be brilliance, profligate, excessive and degenerate personal habits and sexual behaviors are considered appropriate.

The Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci observed that cultural hegemony can only be maintained when the ideologies of the ruling class are perceived by subalterns to be in their interests. This, of course, requires a fairly extensive apparatus devoted to enforcing social consensus and propagating the core beliefs of the elite. “Making racism shameful” is an example of this sort of social coercion.

These core ideological-religious beliefs (such as multiculturalism and diversity) are ceaselessly promoted every day in the media, in academia, in political and in commercial life. This is an important function of institutions such as YLE, and the only function of state-sponsored “experts” such as Karmela Liebkind. Indoctrination will be necessary for as long as Europeans with some sort of collective memory of European society (and its obvious superiority to other societies) remain a majority of the population. Once indigenous European populations are minorities in their own homelands, they will represent a much diminished threat to the hegemony of the elites, who will by that time undoubtedly have developed different ideologies in order to thwart the interests of their perceived enemies.

Here we have an example of the radical “Umwertung aller Werte” necessary to delegitimize European identity and pave the way for demographic population replacement.

Sounds to me as you know your way around “German nationalistic terminology”. Despite that fact you seem in the same vein to forget that this “Umwertung aller Werte” has been the policy of all colonial powers. But as long as it serves “nationalistic purposes” it can implemented in the European hemisphere as well. Just to keep these “blackies, yellows, split-eyes, black-dressies” out.

“Making racism shameful” is an example of this sort of social coercion. You will support the opposite I guess: “Being racist proudfully” And you will not call that social coercion. You propbably will call this “proper education”. Hitler-Jugend you undoubtely will have no problems with, do you??

Indoctrination will be necessary for as long as Europeans with some sort of collective memory of European society (and its obvious superiority to other societies) remain a majority of the population.

I have to check if this a “copy-paste” from the former Nazi Minister of Propaganda Goebbels!!
It is shocking to read that after the experiences of WW II people still believe that the nationalist track is viable. This attitude of “SUPER-RACE” sorry in your case I should use “Uebermensch” is disgusting and beyond any dignity.

If you are so sure about your ideas, dear Eduardo, would you be so kind and tell me where you are from??

–I have to check if this a “copy-paste” from the former Nazi Minister of Propaganda Goebbels!! It is shocking to read that after the experiences of WW II people still believe that the nationalist track is viable. This attitude of “SUPER-RACE” sorry in your case I should use “Uebermensch” is disgusting and beyond any dignity.

Good point. The problem with those that are flirting with fascism, racism and nationalist socialism in all shapes and forms like Counter-Jihadists, are too young to know where that type of ideology led them to. Read history and you’ll know. That is why some of us are doomed to commit the same mistakes of the past.

eyeopener, you are clearly unfamiliar with the European intellectual tradition, otherwise the provenance of that citation would be known to you – it has nothing to do with nationalism or colonialism.

If the level of sophistication of one’s ideological opponents can be gauged with some accuracy by the time it takes for Godwin’s law to prevail, we can fairly conclude that on this blog we are dealing with crude, “mechanistic” Diversityism. But to paraphrase Plekhanov, someone has to do the dull, tireless work of repeating the same lies over and over until the populace is too indifferent to resist them.

How can we take an admonition to “read history” seriously from someone whose historical knowledge is apparently drawn from the collective wisdom of American television producers? Is there even one halfway-educated person in the entire world who is actually convinced by this laughable MLK cult? Sorry, but we are not going to worship some deceitful and opportunistic race-bating negro simply because you get teary-eyed when reminiscing about your childhood.

-‘If Soini were black or part of a minority like the Romany, I doubt that he’d play down the role of racism in the PS never mind Finland.’

Enrique, aren’t you forgetting conveniently that Timo Soini is part of a religious minority, Roman Catholicism to be precise. So this notion that Perussuomalaiset are against all minorities including Swedish speaking Finns is pathetic considering their leader’s religious beliefs. There also aren’t any party members trying to challenge him because of that fact.

You will also find labelling Perussuomalaiset a Far-right party is completely false and misleading because if you havn’t noticed already in the parliament seating order, they have been placed in the centre-left. Policies such as increased state investment in infrastructure and industry, state support for rural regions, progressive taxation and the welfare state are frankly Left-wing policies.

Klay, I think it has been clear that the PS is a right-wing populist party with a far-right wing. As you know the PS is a hodgepodge of different ideologies that boil down to one thing: conservative nationalism. There are, however, some PS members who have been outspoken on racism but they are a minority.

The PS define themselves as a nationalist and Christian social party (kansallismielinen ja kristillissosiaalinen puolue). When it comes to the role of the state and taxation they are more left than right, in everything else more right than left.

All and all I think the tendency is, even in Finland, to move towards a conservative-liberal division in stead of or in addition to a right-left division. And on this spectrum, the PS can be only defined as extremely conservative.

Hi Seppo, there are a lot of descriptions out there. The job of the sharp journalist or student of society is to see past these official labels. Even if some of the PS may see themselves in the left, that political spectrum like the “right” has lots of variations. Despite what the PS says, you hit it right on the nail: “the PS can be only defined as extremely conservative.”

In many respects, they don’t differ from other far right and right-wing populist parties in Europe who are anti-EU, anti-immigration and especially anti-Islam. Take a look at Olli Immonen’s webpage and you will see Timo Soini next all those labels that characterize these Anti-Jihadists.PS MP Immonen, as you know, belongs to the extreme right of the PS.

In amongst all that ad hominem muck slinging, you forgot to comment on the ideals that MLK proclaimed. I’m sure that this was a mere oversight on your behalf, and that you have some considered view to offer in this respect as well.

Let’s begin with the Montgomery bus boycott. Do you think the authorities were correct to impose segregation according to skin colour on the public transportation service?

Eduardo, I grew up in the United States during the Civil Rights Movement. I am fortunate that I did. If there is one matter that MLK proved it is that through non-violence things can change. He will continue to be a source of inspiration for many of us for generations to come. He was one of those great men of history that did not succumb to hatred like many that did and died by the sword so to speak.

You don’t even need an army or bombs to change society and create a social movement. Visit as JusticeDemon says Montgomery, Alabama, on December 1, 1955 and check out a black woman called Rosa Parks. See what she did and what it implied for the Civil Rights Movement.

justicedemon, the “ideals” of MLK consist of plagiarized theological platitudes fused to crude black nationalist slogans and internationalist Marxism. MLK was not a thinker or a theorist, and his copied writings have played no role in the subsequent development of the doctrines of Cultural Marxism. Rather, MLK was a person in the right place at the right time – he represented to his backers in the American Communist Party and associated “anti-racist” organizations such as the NAACP a pragmatic means of subverting the legitimacy of the worldview of the dominant European/Anglo-Saxon demographic group in the Southern USA in the 1950s.

In this respect it would perhaps be relevant to consider the perspective of Leon Trotsky, a revered ideological godfather of the contemporary diversityist worldview and a personal friend of Jacob Schiff, whose money founded the NAACP.
Trotsky writes in 1933: “To us the Negroes represent an important factor in the class struggle, almost a decisive factor… 99.9 per cent of the American workers are chauvinists…. It is necessary to teach the American beasts. It is necessary to make them understand that the American state is not their state and that they do not have to be the guardians of this state… The Negro can be developed to a class standpoint only when the white worker is educated.” And so forth. Trotsky presciently emphasizes the necessity of “educating” white “beasts” in order to effectively utilize the Negro as a tool of class warfare. And that is exactly what MLK’s handlers did.

As far as Montgomery and Rosa Parks are concerned, here yet again we have the familiar configuration of a black person as a proxy for advancing the interests of a group (the NAACP, for which she was a secretary) highly interested in subverting the existing social order. Parks was trained at the same leftist indoctrination camps as King, and her role can be considered to be essentially the same as that of MLK.

If the citizens of some American city in the early 20th century made decisions regarding the appropriate use of public transportation according to ethnicity, so be it. Today ethnicity continues to be used as a criterium for making decisions as to which members of society have access to much more important things, such as higher education or government employment. The lesson is that ethnicity continues to be a salient element of individual identity, as it has been throughout all of human history. The difference between the current situation and that of mid-20th-century American South is that now we live under regimes that grant preference to those of non-European ancestry. Trotsky would undoubtedly be proud.

Do you think the authorities were correct to impose segregation according to skin colour on the public transportation service?

In amongst all that pseudo-intellectual claptrap you managed to say only this in response to my question:

If the citizens of some American city in the early 20th century made decisions regarding the appropriate use of public transportation according to ethnicity, so be it.

Even assuming that you are trying to argue that we ought to be amoral about access to public services, this begs even bigger questions about access to democratic institutions and the conditions for meaningful democracy. You are fully aware that blacks were systematically excluded from the policymaking processes that resulted in segregation. Do you think that this exclusion was right, or do you think that this is somehow a meaningless question as well?

I suspect that Ricky has got your number, but I prefer to humour you a little. Please try to answer more concisely this time, instead of hiding your response in a lot of pseudo-intellectual Breivik babble.

Alternatively you can take offence and sign off in a huff again, as you have done under many aliases before.

Justicedemon, there’s nothing hidden here. Attitudes towards issues such as race, immigration and social change can only be understood in the context of their historical development, although it doesn’t surprise me in the least that you disdain historical analysis or European intellectual history. Responding to posts which frame the current dominant ideology in the context of its historical development by bleating about Hitler, Goebbels or Breivik does not a sound argument make.

That’s great that you’re so concerned about the “conditions for meaningful democracy”, but for some reason I doubt you’ll speak out against the widespread system of racial preferences that determines access to education and employment in the United States at the present time, as has been consolidated in the policies of Affirmative Action or the “Civil Rights Act” or the vast bureaucracy of the EEOC. No, much more important to speak out on behalf of a communist negro agitator from the past century now universally championed by virtually all contemporary elites as some sort of godlike saint.

The “Civil Rights” movement was an attempt to delegitimze the authority, the traditions, the culture and the identity of European Americans in the United States in order to prepare the way for globalist universal hegemony and its political goals, among which is the demographic replacement of Europeans. Trotsky recognized this and advocated it. He was quite wrong about one thing, however – as far as blacks are concerned, they have shown themselves to be incapable of maintaining even the rudiments of Western civilization in every place in which they live in large numbers. Take a look at recent news from Montgomery, Alabama and report back to us whether or not this is a prosperous, orderly and socially cohesive community.

Speaking out in behalf of the powerful and supporting the ideology of the ruling elite is the opposite of brave, regardless of the intellectual contents of that ideology.

–The “Civil Rights” movement was an attempt to delegitimze the authority, the traditions, the culture and the identity of European Americans in the United States in order to prepare the way for globalist universal hegemony and its political goals, among which is the demographic replacement of Europeans. Eduardo, you seem to forget that the US is a mosaic of cultures. White European USAmericans are only one of many groups.

Instead you reprise the same old racist attitudes of the conquistador and the slave trader, albeit couched in the pseudo-intellectual babble of a Norwegian serial child killer. Ultimately you are still judging the character of billions of people based on a handful of secondary biological characteristics.

Your last paragraph is refreshingly self-critical. Perhaps there is hope for you after all.

We -Westerns- are not sitting and waiting for support of a “f….., split-eyed,…….communist-frustrated……person like you”. Trying to get some respect from the “minority”??

Once more I have asked you this question. …..please be so kind to answer only this one: Who the heck you think you are to assess the way the majority of Finns and foreigners see this country and the way they choose to live?”

Surprised about my language??? Are you really?? Consider the way you discuss issues and wonder why people react this way.

If it is not a surprise to you (what I actually expect) maybe you can accept it as an indicator that people start to get bore about your way of presenting “THE WORLD ACCORDING TO LAPUTIS”.

Trotsky recognised a movement of resistance and tried to subvert it with his own political agenda. No surprise there. Are you trying to smear the civil rights movement in the US simply by making spurious connections with communism? Well, I wonder what your intention would be for doing that?

– “The “Civil Rights” movement was an attempt to delegitimze the authority, the traditions, the culture and the identity of European Americans…”

I think you have missed something rather obvious Eduardo, in amongst all that intellectual fog. The civil rights movement was an attempt to gain civil rights! If that delegitised the authority, traditions, culture and identity of European Americans, then perhaps they shouldn’t have prefaced the same treasured values on racism and slavery!